Categories
General Light Rail Metro Rail

Once a Leader in Urban Rail Investment, the United States Now Trails

Worldwide, metro service availability has expanded exponentially. In 1950, only 24 metropolitan areas in 13 countries globally could boast of a subway, elevated line, or monorail. Today, 232 metropolitan areas in 63 countries can make such a claim.

As late as 1980, the United States had more kilometers of metro lines per capita than all large developed countries but the United Kingdom—thanks in part to large public investments in projects like Washington’s Metro and San Francisco’s BART. In the decades since, both the United States and the United Kingdom have stagnated, falling behind even as other countries, particularly China, but also India and many in Europe and South America, have invested in massive new construction campaigns. Much of the world’s urban areas are rapidly becoming dominated by metro service.

In this post, I exploit data from the newly expanded Transit Explorer database, which now includes all metro lines worldwide plus other fixed-route transit services in many countries. The database has been significantly expanded since I wrote about findings from its last update in January. This geospatial database allows me to investigate when and where transit is being built.

The first trend is unambiguous: Worldwide, metro service availability has expanded exponentially. In 1950, only 24 metropolitan areas in 13 countries globally could boast of a subway, elevated line, or monorail (automated light metros didn’t yet exist). Today, 232 metropolitan areas in 63 countries can make such a claim.

Metro construction has accelerated. The number of kilometers of metro lines in active service has expanded from just over 7,000 in 2000 to more than 23,000 today—a tripling of service even as the global population has grown by only about 30 percent during that time. There are almost 7,000 additional kilometers of metro lines currently under construction globally.

World Metro Line Kilometers

The increase in metro service availability in since 2000 has been driven by Chinese cities, which now host more than 40 percent of world metro kilometers. European cities have been steadily increasing their metro route length since the 1970s, however, and Indian cities have accelerated subway and elevated construction since 2010.

Cities in the United States had a plurality of the world’s metro kilometers until 1960. At that point, cities in the now-European Union accumulated more route kilometers (European cities now have about double the total metro kilometers as those in the United States). Chinese cities passed those in Europe in terms of length in about 2010—and Indian cities are expected to host more metro service than the United States by 2025, given current construction activity.

Metro Line Kilometers by Country

One major explanation for the United States’ declining rank in terms of metro service availability is the fact that the New York City region—which had the world’s longest metro system until the mid-1980s—now has fewer subway or elevated kilometers than it did in 1940, at its peak.

The New York region now has the 13th longest metro system in the world (including the Subway and PATH)—shorter than systems in nine Chinese cities (not all shown on the following graph), plus London, Moscow, Seoul. By 2025, it will be the 15th longest, passed by Delhi and another Chinese city. Remarkably, Shanghai’s metro system is now twice as long as New York’s Subway—despite the former only opening its doors in 1993. New York City has no serious plans to expand its system, even as virtually every other major metropolitan area is doing so.

Metro Line Kilometers by City

The result of the United States’ limited progress in providing metro services to its residents is that the number of metro kilometers per resident in the country is now lower than it was in the 1980s. It had the second-most-plentiful metro service per-capita in the world until that point (after the United Kingdom)—but on this metric it has now been passed by the European Union, as well as China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, among other countries.

Per Capita Metro Lines by Country

Even when incorporating data on light rail and streetcar lines—which US cities have been more focused on building than metros—transit service availability has declined since the 1970s. Indeed, all of the rail transit construction that’s occurred in the United States since the 1980s has done little more than keep up with population growth.

Up until 2000—perhaps surprisingly given lower transit ridership—the United States had more kilometers of metro and light rail lines per capita than residents of neighboring countries or many large European countries for which the Transit Explorer database has complete information (the database does not yet include light rail or streetcar lines for all countries).

But the United States has lost its position on this metric to France and Spain in the years since. France went from having about half the per-capita urban rail miles as the United States in 2000 to significantly more today. And countries like Italy and the Netherlands have been rapidly expanding their services in recent years.

Per Capita Metro and Light Rail Lines by Country

What’s next for the United States? The federal government’s infrastructure law, passed in 2021, will send hundreds of billions of dollars to cities for new transit projects. So far, though, that hasn’t been enough to spur a massive investment in new transit lines compared to past efforts. Transit agencies in major cities are facing a “fiscal cliff” due to declining ridership that may make it more difficult for them to continue to provide adequate daily service. And construction costs are rising rapidly due to inflation.

8 replies on “Once a Leader in Urban Rail Investment, the United States Now Trails”

For less than two miles of track and four stations (that are already falling apart) for the Second Avenue Subway the cost was $4.5 billion. Now the less than two mile extension will cost more than $6 billion. It is no wonder that we can’t build more with the unions funding the Politicians who then do not care about the costs…as long as they get the votes and the campaign cash.

This comment highlights the complexity and financial challenges involved in expanding and maintaining public transportation infrastructures, such as the Second Avenue Subway in question. The apparent inflation of costs suggests potential inefficiencies or other external factors influencing the budget of such projects. The text also underscores a concern about the possible influence of unions and political interests in the management and allocation of resources for these projects, suggesting that decisions may be driven more by political considerations than by the necessity and efficiency of the works. This scenario, as presented, could limit the capacity for expansion and continuous improvement of public transportation services offered to the population, due to priorities and influences that don’t necessarily align with the best public interest and efficient delivery of infrastructure projects.

Just returned from Lyon. Metro trains & Trams were packed. It’s disturbing to see that Chicago, San Francisco-Oakland, Washington & Boston metro areas can’t match the ridership per capita of Lyon. You mentioned many of the reasons in the past, but its clear that highway widening & expansion are the biggest culprits for poor Commuter Rail, Metro Heavy Rail & Metro Light Rail ridership in America. Our leaders are certified insane for repeating the same thing each year and expecting a different result.

The UK is even worse than the USA. Other than the Jubilee tube line and the regional rail cross-city Elizabeth line in London, no new Metro line has been built in the UK since the Tyne and Wear Metro system opened in the early 1980s; it has subsequently been slightly extended. A few light rail systems have opened, and subsequently extended, but no new systems have opened since 2004 in England and none are planned or likely to be built.

Your analysis about the UK is true in spirit but not technically true.

Recent or in the pipeline
* Cambridge and Dunstable guided busways (depending on your definition of metro)
* Luton DART (again depending on your definition of metro)
* Fleetwood tram train
* Coventry ULT pilot (although that risks being a gadgetbahn)
* DLR and Bakerloo line extensions (to be funded as part of Transit oriented development, probably a decade away at least)
* East West rail (Varsity line), again depending on your definition of a Metro
* Further extension of Edinburgh tram
* Further developments around Cambridge (at least a decade away)
* and probably one or two more I have missed, leaving aside crayonista proposals like Norfolk Orbital Rail

But all of these will be pretty small beer, mileage wise.

This comment highlights the complexity and financial challenges involved in expanding and maintaining public transportation infrastructures, such as the Second Avenue Subway in question. The apparent inflation of costs suggests potential inefficiencies or other external factors influencing the budget of such projects. The text also underscores a concern about the possible influence of unions and political interests in the management and allocation of resources for these projects, suggesting that decisions may be driven more by political considerations than by the necessity and efficiency of the works. This scenario, as presented, could limit the capacity for expansion and continuous improvement of public transportation services offered to the population, due to priorities and influences that don’t necessarily align with the best public interest and efficient delivery of infrastructure projects.

Looking at the staggering costs involved in the Second Avenue Subway expansion in New York brings forth a whirlpool of questions and reflections. With an expenditure of $4.5 billion for less than two miles of track and four stations—which, notably, are already showing signs of wear and tear—and a subsequent extension projected to cost over $6 billion, we are compelled to probe deeper into the underlying reasons. The narrative suggests a mesh of influences and vested interests where unions and political actors appear to hold sway, creating a reciprocal ecosystem of union financing and political decision-making. This cycle doesn’t necessarily seem to prioritize project necessity and efficiency. The pressing question then emerges: Are decisions being calibrated for the public good, or are they swayed by political calculations and personal interests? The trajectory of public transportation, its effectiveness, and its capacity to meet societal needs hinge on transparent, accountable management genuinely committed to sustainable urban development and continuous improvement.

Another major obstacle that goes unmentioned in the US is not-invented-here syndrome, or in other words, xenophobia – e.g. the Buy America law which makes projects even more expensive and complicated.
It would probably be a good idea to do an article about xenophobia and transit.

Leave a Reply